F^/66 

'fi.19 



SPEECH 

P 466 
.R74 
Copy 1 



JAMES S'^'RpLLINS, OF BOONE COUFrY. 



DELIVERED IN JOINT SESSION OF THE SENATE AND HOUSK 

OF REPKESENTATIVES, PENDING THE ELECTION 

FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR. 



IN EEPLY TO 



MR- GOODE, OF ST, LOUIS. 



JSPFEPvSON CITY: 

LUP£'S STEAM POWER rHES.S, PRINT 

1855. 



Fi-UL 



SPEECH 



ki. ROLLIin;, %aid: I feel callud upon to reply to the very remarkable- specct, whi.^i 
tlie gentleman trom St. Louis has just closed, and the delivery of which ha. occupied the 
a«eut.on ot this jomt session for nearly two days. That gentleman, professing to bo a Whis 
had made upon me a most uncalled for attack. I h.ve .said nothingfand done nothino-, tha 
would justify him in the unwarrantable course which he has thought proper to pursue A few 
days since, prompted by a sense of duty, and for the purpose of promoting the ele;tion of 
Ae ^Vhig Candida e to the Senate, I made u. few remarks, explaining my po.^tion upon n^V 
oi t le various pohtical questions whieh have been discussed heret and for the puipose of 
nudicatmg the political party of which I am an humble member. Certainly, sir I did no 

;??nVtv''''r'-^;-"^-.f '"!'''' *° ^^^^ "°''' ^^^^^ ^'^"'^ "^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ gentlemen whose coopera- 
t^in I desired, and with whom it was my sincere wish to act in harmony, iu the promotion 

cf a common cause. I think I .-nn «.,f.->Ur .r>v.^oi ♦ _ .), " ^tni. piomouoii 

flooi 

f^^.f " .."v.„.^..... ^^ , .i«iii;itLc, 111 wiu remarKS wnicn nave given ,<■: uch rrreat ofiense 

^,^^jS"r ,^T.^!:„^<!!!!!l (3!^«-^«-) S-' ^^ I.asti.veled ove. a wide tSd^J 



sessi :>n 

s«,ser 

the 



nn, dealing in arguments fallacious and contradictory, denying the truth of his' or v 
rting propositions whicli he could not maintain, and advocating doctrines revor£/'o 
sound judgment ot every man, till his whole speech lookerl to hini • *^^«""i<. 



erf a common cause. I think I can safely appeal to every genuine Whis on th s 
floor, and ask heir endorsement of every opinion which I have advaifced, a id of Sery pri 
«ple which I have attempted to vindicate, in the remarks wliich have given ..uchgrea 'offense 
to he gentleman from St. Louis (Mr. Goode.) Sir, he has traveled over a wide field of 
pohtical history, he has read authority upon authority, which in very many instances h-i4 
no apphcation. whatever, to the points in issue. The gentlemanhad c.fntiuuJl to po^ forth 
his "everlasting flood" of words for the eight long hours which he consumed in the 'Jiut 

utrt '■ ■ ^ . - 

lin, 

spe( 

" Like tho tala of .-id idiot, 
Full of souad and fury, signifying notliini;." 

I had long heard of the lofty reputation of the gentleman from St. Lr.ais a- u 
C^.tit.utional Lawyer! Having heard him upon the constitutional ques i n whi<U 
he investigated with so much acutouss .and research, and expounded with so much ?,o,nW 
torce a.^.^..^,,c«.<y, I have a still more exalted opinion of his abilities • Tirmorn nrh« 
I'^rtlV]"" '^""TT '^ 'i' ^r?^' ^^CoBgress to legislate upon slavery in he ?eSies 
a. a tes. of tue orthodoxy of a Whig. Iu caucus he made the declaration that he would no' 
vote for any man who admitted the existence of the power. It is difficult to reconcUe the 
declaration m caucus, with h,s declaration in this hall. But the gentleman contend "th. 
tbosewho admit that Congress ha.s the power, would, if in that asfemb^furge t on o J 
ei.erc.se of that power; that those who deem that Congress has the poweV to le.' sSe un 'u 
slavery in the Territories, would support that body in it^'s exercise of that P .wer e 'enthou^b 
re legislated slavery out of the Territories. It will be admitted that Cong el has the p'^^t 
to declare war. lhatj>ower is not questioned ; and, would I, if I were in Con Jesf 01-^11^ 
other g.ntleinan feel bound without just cause to vote for putting it into opei.S ' The po f 
ofofincreasmgthe army and navy is conferred upon Congress by the (>i«titution and^? 
were proposed to increase the army to 100,000 strong, should I, if I were a mombei- of that 
body, support e proposition ? What a monstrous principle ! He takes tie po^it on th A 
r?,S f-Z ^^'\':^'''''' °f l^' Po^^i-. because I admit' its cxistence-tJiat d co . d;i., 
t»ons of right in icy or expediency can have no influence. Sir, the gentleinan mu" Icro'w 
better he is triflmg with the good sense of this joint session, when hf ar™ so ab urd a 
proposition! I have said bclore, and I now repeat it, that m. iiy excellent^?Vh--< s de ly 'Z; 
power. Many Whigs, denying that power, have been nominated for office W Ve Wd rpai." 
^.idthey have receivc.l my earnest and cordial support. Even when the .^a I'raa fvJm St' 
Jx)u,s was censured for the avowals which he made in the Whig caucus I tie" n, od 1, n^fl';, 

.j> rash and impolitic expressions, and was willing to believe, and williu- to instill the same 
belief intotho minds of others, that the gentleman was misunderstood PlVhas attto^^ 
to me during his speech of eight hours, motives by wliich I am not governed, and "S^^^^^^^ 

Te las utr /'urkThe sa ' n'V 't' ^''^ ^^"^'"'""^ ^^"'^'^ '^' --^ ^veapo'i s Xh 
)ie nas "-ed— t l took the same liberty and pryed into the secrets of his brea<-t Imi<rhtdr^^ 
a purpose to the liglit which would not fortif/ his position as a Whig SrV n ^S chir J 
him with making the attempt to destroy the Whig party-to betray it in the hands of he 
enemy. He has b.3en for and against the test-lie has made, not a Whi.l speech but a Demo 
orn 10 speech. [Cnes of "no ! no ! "J That characterizati^on is repudia tj VeU the? i 
.rJl 3ay Anti-Boatoa speoch-an AtchisoK speech. [Applau.e.] Iu and ou of ctucu , rr.- 



[4] 

vmtftly and publicly, be lias striven to get released from his caucus obligations. Iif- haa 
iv.bored to get absolved from his allegiance to Doiiiphan. For what purpose, 1 vould apk ? 
I will answer — that he might indulge the longings of his heart, and vote lor David R. Atchi- 
son, unless gentlemen might discover a fitter candidals I 

Mr. GOODE begged leave to ask the gentleman from Boone if he meant to charge him with 
designing the overthrow of the Whig party ? 

Mr. liULLINS — Sir, I try him by his own test. I apply to his conduct the maxim he has 
made such liberal use of — that actions speak louder than word.-!. These actions evince the 
gentleman's proclivities, and designate, not his fir-3t, but his choice of the other two candi- 
dates for the Senatorship. The gentleman has told us in his speech, " that Doniphan could 
not be elected," and in. connection with this declaration, he has made an appeal to the 'pat- 
rioti.wi' of the Whigs to " break throv.gh party ties aiid elect a Senator! " What does he mean 
■by the use of such language, if it is not his design to overthrow the Whig party ? 

Mr. President, the gentleman has accused mo of aspiring to the Senatorship, and of 
desiring to supplant Gol. Doniphan, as the candidate of the Whig party for that office. Sir, 
my name has been public property, in Missouri, for twenty years and for that period of time, 
I have been doing what I could for the triumph of our cause and the prosperity of our party, 
tn sunshine and in storm, in prosperity and in adversity — and the season of adversity has been 
TStrach the longest — I have labored for that party, and I have never asked or sought an office 
at its hands. I cheerfully acquiesced in its decisions, and laithfuUy obeyed its behests. 

Sir, a seat in the Senate would have no attractions for me, unless fairly won. There is, 
sir, but ouehcnorabie way to seek an office, aiid that is. to state your principles openly and 
manfully, throw yourself into the hands of your political friends, and abide whatever action 
they may choose to take. But, sir, there is another, I may say, a dishonorable way of seek- 
ing it; in the langnnge of the gentleman from St. Louis, of ^'creeping into the Senate! " Sir, 
if I intended thus to seek the place I would endeavor to distract and divide my own party by 
intrroducir.g a test wliich woidd be repudiated by a great majority of that party, but which 
wight separate from the main body some seven or eight calling tliemselvcs Southern Whigs. 
(Mr. Goode got eight votes for Speaker, at the commencement of the session, in Whig'caucus.) 
\i that did not succeed, I would labor day and night, to take down the nominee of my 
party — say Gen. Doniphan — in order that I, along with my seven or eight friends, might be 
cut loose, and be at liberty to play out the game I meditated. I would then hire myself out 
by the day to the opposing party, to advocate their opinions and laud their candidate, while 
the omission of his name and claims from my speech would show thnt my own candidate — I 
•Tie^n the candidate of my party — was so low that none would do Jiim reverence; and after 
having done all this, I v^ould turn my back on the party which I had betrayed, and with hat 
in hand, sind with beseeching eyes, ask the party to which I had soM myself, if they did not 
discover in me tbo fittest pei-sou to wear the mantle of a Senator. [Great applause and 
Uughter.] 

Tdr. BARNES rose and said, that if the gentleman from Boone counted him as one of the 
org:^.nization of the seven or eight he alluded to as Mr. Goode's fritjids, he was mistaken. 

Mr. EOLLINS — I spoke of the seven or eight who were my friends — [Renewed la'aghter.j 
1 did not mean the gentleman from Scott, for he has so much of the milk of human kindue.-i.i 
in his breast, that I think he would swallow even me, if I were nominated in caucus, and sia 
to the organization of seven or eight, it has grown " small by degrees and beautifully less," 
uotil it is now an organization of one. 

Sir, I would ask this assembly what are the claims of David R. Atchison upon the Whig 
party ef Missouri ? Kas he not, for twenty-five years proved himself^the untiring and unre- 
lenting enemy of that party ? Is he not the right hand man of an administration that iias 
struck down every Whig official in the State? Has not the most intolerant proscription 
characterized the conduct of that aelrainistration in this State ? and has not its ear been open 
to t)ie counsels of David R. Atchison, and arc not its actions the fruit of his promptings ? 
What principles, sir, do the Whig party hold in common with David R^ Atchison? Did he 
not sustain thfl message of President Pierce, vetoing the River and Harbor bill, in whicii 
Iftrgs appropriations were made for rivers passing thi'ough and bordering iipon our State '! 
Ar.d is lie not su.staiuing an administration wliich, by the veto of another bill, that for the 
relief of the indigent insane, the people of Missoiiri lost a grant of land, which would have 
amounted ti;- K or 51)0,000 acres ? A munificent donation, intended by the Congressional 
liiajrjrity who passed it, for the most benevolent and clyirittjblo of all purposes ; the relief 
r)f those upon whom the hand of affliction had fallen, and whereby the light of reason and 
religion might again shine into the hearts of many, who were now an incumbrance to thoir 
friends and to tlieir country? 

I ask if that administration has not lieen the st-ady foe of the interests of the West, and 
more particularly of Tdissouri ? Has it not lent it.s whole influence to bi'cak down the greatest 
project which will ever be open to the ambition of this State ? I mean the Pacific Railroad 
arx tiie Central Route. It has lent itself to the North and to the South to mar this great 
enterprise. And wc And Atchison aiding and abetting that administration, and sustaixiia ; 
ics action and endorsing its opinions. Mr. President, is this a time, when we arc planting 
'.''■ef , gn »t pvjnciplea of National and State policy, to root them up by sending Da^id R. 



[5] 

Atchi>:ou back to the Seuatc of tlio United States ? His advocates identify liim with the pro- 
tection of one, aud ouly of cue institution. Is there only one institution to be protected ? 
<mly one interest to bo promoted ? Even that institution is safer with Doniphan than with 
Atchison. The safety of that institution I'equires prudent and steady guardianship more 
than any otlier. It should not be entrusted to the hands of any zealot — of any man of 
extreme views and excitable temperament. We do nut want fanatics, North «r South, in 
Congress. Sir, it is manifest that Doniphan, if elected, wuuld represent all the interests of 
Missouri, and not one only. But even on that one, I would ask what are the differences 
between Doniphan and Atchison ? The gentleman from St. Louis had spoken of a party in 
Missouri that designed the abolition of slavery. I know of no such party. I know no mem- 
ber of such a party. The three candidates before the joint session — Atchison. Benton aa(S 
Doniphan, occupy now precisely the same ground upon tlie Kansas-Nebraska bill. Each had 
declared against the repeal of that law, and in favor of admitting Kansas with or witiioat 
slavery, as the people of that Territory may indicate in their Constitution, when tliey come 
to form a State government. Why then, sir, I ask, arc such uccusaiious made by the gectle- 
man from St. Louis ? 

'^Spargere voc-es 
Jn vulgum ambigiMS.'^ 

Yes sir, the object is to scatter suspicions among the people — to keep them in a state of 
agitation and alarm, in order that reckless demagogues may pluck projootion from their ter- 
rors, aud wring that from their fears which would never be given by their love. 

Mr. President, I was endeavoring to point out the distinction — wide and deep — betweea 
Dftvid R. Atchison and the Whig party. I dwelt briefly on tlie stern proscription of Whig 
officials, by that admiaistratiou which is guided by Atchison in its action in Missouri. AiB 
an incident illustrating the character of that proscription, I shall refer to Thomc^s Moseley, a 
high-minded, manly and impetuous gentleman, who was well known in the State of Jlissouri, 
aud esteemed wherever he was known, who held the office of an Indian Agent; and yet this 
worthy citizen and highminded gentleman (the father of my friend, the member from New 
Madrid, ) was proscribed because he was a Whig ? His only otTense was that of being a Whig 
who was always true to his party and- his country. Neither age nor reputation could pro- 
tect him, and he was guillotined to .gratify the thirst for WLig blood, and the ravenous 
appetite for spoils which burned in the breast of that party of which DaAad B. Atchison i.y 
the leader. 

The gentleman from St. Louis has made professions loud and long, of his whiggery. Il<^ 
ha,s tlireatened to expel from our party ranks, men who have growu grey in the service. He 
would enforce a rule wJiich would unwhig some of the most distinguished of the Whigs i» 
Missouri, and the most distinguished iu the nation, living and dead. What are the claims of 
this gentleman upon the Whig party ? What great services has he rendered ? what sacrifices 
has he endured, that he should thus dominate and play the despot ? Sir, I have heard it 
idiarged upon that gentleman that no later than '52, he vo ted, not for Gen. Scott, but for 
Franklin Piei-ce: I desire to knowthe fact. Is it true, sir? [turning to Mr. Goode.] 

Mr. GOODE— It is true, sir. 

Mr. ROLLINS — Good God 1 what a Whig. [Laughter and applause.] To rote for Frank- 
lin Fierce, the obscure lawyer, hailing from the bleak and barren hills of New Hampshire, 
m preference to the hero of Chippewa and Lundy's Lane, of Cerro Gordo and Churubusco, and 
whose tall plume had waved over a hundred other victorious battle fields. What I ask again 
aa-e the claims of this gentleman, upon the Whig party of Missouri, or of the nation, that /i-a 
should presume, to become its adviser or its censor.? Are those men to be regarded as Whii/f, 
who voted for Pierce iu 1852? 

The gentkman confesses that he refused to vote for Scott, a pillar of the Whig cause and a 
pillar of the State, and clothed as he was with national renown as with a garment! Ah! 
tliis gives us the key to the gentleman's conduct in this house, and determines the quality of 
bis wliiggory. Sir I have heard of freesoil Whigs and Southern Whigs, of Fillmore Whigs and 
Clay Whigs; even of Benton Whigs and anti-Benton Whigs, but this is the first time that, 1 
ever heard of a Pierce AVhig. The gentleman from St. Louis is the only Pierce Whig I have 
«ver seen. [Loud and long continued applause.] A Pierce Whig is .^uch a monstrous pro- 
duction, that it ought to be preserved as the strangest curiosity of political natural history, 
and if the distinguished Missouri artist — my excellent friend Bingham, whose honest heart i 
prize, and whose brilliant genius I admire — were to portray the hideous hybrid on his canvass, 
I would move to hang it in this hall opposite the picture of Missouri's Senator, not as an in- 
centive to lofty deeds and unwavering fidelity to the party, but as a warning to ray youthful 
friends around me, who, like my <'rieud and colleague, [pointing to Mr. Guitar) are tired by an 
honorable ambition, and gifted with intellect and eloquence — to teach them the horror of 
ti-eason, either to their party or their country. There as in gibbet would I desire the "coun- 
terfeit presentment" of the political malefactor to hang, as a monument of the conduct not 
to be imitated but spurned aud loathed by the youthful statesmen of our party. [Uproarious 
laughter and applause.] 

Mr. GOODE— I second the motion of the gentleman for procuring the picture, if all tl»« 
whigs who voted for Pierce arc embraced in it. 

Mr. ROLLINS— Do I uudcrstand the gentleman as saying there is another YVhlg in this 



Assembly who Totecl for Pierce? I -vrould move that the brace be iramortalized on the same 
canvass and ho elevated to the same unenviable eminence in this hall. 

It is not to be expected that I should follow the gentleman through his long, discursive and 
OTratic speech. I shall, however, reply to some of the points which he attempted to estab- 
lish in that pointless but voluminous discourse. I will reiterate what I consider to be the 
Gorrect doctrine upon the subject of slavery. Congress, according to the opinions ot almost 
ovcrj statesman of the republic, has the power of legislation in the territories invested in 
her by the Constitution. That power was exercised by the Confederation, and after tb« 
adoption of the Constitution, by Congress, and reason, usage and authority demonstrate that 
the power is radically inher ent in that body. But if Congress has the power, as I believe it 
has, to legislate upon slavery in the territories, justice, honor and expediency forbid its exer- 
cise ; and those principles impose restrictions upon the arbitrary action of Congress as bind- 
ing as any constitutional obligation. The gentleman from St. Louis has defined his positiou 
upon siavery. He would extend the area of the institution from the rising to the setting of 
the sun, and from the rivers to the ends of the earth! He would darken the whole conti- 
nent with tlie shadow of that institution, and I grant, with a patriotic purpose, for he asserts 
that in its shadow, flourish most luxm-iantly, "virtue, intellectuality and refinement." The 
gentleman has defined his views, and I thank him for doing it. He is emphatically a pr^- 
slavery man, and would, as a matter of course, animated by the same patriotic purpose, 
revive the Foreign African slave trade. 
Mr. GOODK nodded assent. 

Mr. fvOLLlN'S. — The gentleman nods assent, and here again I tender him my thanks for 
Lis candor. He would revive those scenes of cruelty and barbarism, the mere recital of 
which has thrilled the breast of every civilized community with horror. He would open the 
door by federal legislation, to the repetition of those atrocities which lay heavy upon the 
ftouls of tlie fathers of the Kepublic, and which the moral feelings of the nation indignantly 
forbade both upon the ocean and the land. He would let loose again the wild and baleful 
elements that are natural to the character of the African savage, in the depths of his firey 
deserts, and which have been jfartially suppressed by the snpjiression of the African slave 
trade. He would rekindle his uncontrollable cupidity, and arm every tribe against the other, 
and make kidnapping their only occupation, and humanbeings their only article of exportation , 
He would remorselessly and' exultingly multiply endless and innumerable wars, quench the 
feeble sparks of religion and civilization which are beginning to appear in that country, and 
ffive supremacy forever to the brutal and diabolical passions of the natives of that land, where 
'•as the earth, her human clay is kindled." Not for ever, because man would soon be exter- 
minated in such a condition of society, and the lion and the leopard would make their lairs 
within the very walls of the "factories," which would crumble into ruins with the decay and 
depopulation of the country. The gentleman answers that he would cheerfully revive a trade 
that would tolerate the seizure of the free though ignorant savage, bearing him a captive to 
the coast, stow him in the pestilential hold of the slaver, where the human cargo are packed 
like herrings, where they die in decades every hour and are cast out to feed the sharks, and 
whence the survivor would emerge, doomed as well as his posterity after him, to lasting 
bondage — a bondman and the father of bondmen. Such, sir, are the results which the state?- 
manship of the gentleman from St. Louis would accomplish. Such are the terms which his 
patriotism would exact of humanity. Sir, we have fanatics at the Soiith as well as the Northj 
and I think the classification of the gcntleir "r from St. Lottis wonld present no difficulty t« 
the members of this House. 

Mr. GOODE rose to explain. He had nodded an affirmative to the inquiry of the gentle- 
man from Boone, but he did not contemplate the revival of the slave trade in its odious senre, 
H5 it prevailed in tlie Colonies, and in the Republic up to lbU8. He would open the slave 
trade, and bring negroes here for the benefit of the negro himself, who required to pa^s 
through a state of pupilage. 

Mr. ROLLINS— There is one way of bringing African negroes here, and that is by opening 
the foreign slave trade. The explanation we have heard is the sober second thought of tl>« 
gentleman. He has taken it back, as he has taken back his first opinion upon the power 
question. The gentleman will be obliged to take more back, and I commend his prudence in 
taking them back thus promptly, 

The gentleman has told us that there was "no eondilion in. /society, ir. which refinement and 
Uitellectualily exinted in any yrcat degree, in which there wan not slavery." If he means by this, 
African slavery, 1 beg to differ with him. Moral and intellectual culture, and social refine- 
ment, are to b« found in as high a state of perfection, throughout tlie civilized world, in free 
as in slave comuinnities. I refer him to the land of Burke and of Chntam, of Shakspcnre 
«nd of Milton, of Cuvier and of Baron Von Humboldt, of Napoleon and Lnmartine. But if 
the gentleman means to jilace the system of humble labor, which exists to some extent in 
our own State and througliout the country, and which has ever existed, on the same footing 
with African slavery, then I repudiate the thcught. as un-American and anti-republican, and 
»t war with the very spirit and genius of our institutions. A man, because he may be com- 
pelled to labor in the humbler walks of life, is not therefore to be regarded and treated as a 
slave. Such a designation would include a large portion of the hard-fisted yeomanry and 
sturdy mechanics of our country, these "Sons of toil" whose strong arms and patriotic hearts 



[7] 

«(nnstitute tLe very Eul)stratuTn npon which rests our repiiWican structure. The Vvry tcea 
who are the bulwarks of liberty: 

"Our country's stay 
In the day and hour of danger," 
Who fight our battles and pay our taxes; who hew down the wilJernesa and dear oiit our 
r vera, who build our railroads ami ouv cities. No, sir, genius audiutellectuality is confined to no 
tjiass or condition amongst men. It is as often found beneath the "lowly thatched cottage' ' 
tin in the proudest palace. And in our own country, and throughout the world, in all that 
aJoras and dignifies the character of man, — in arms and in literature, in eloquence, ia 
sUtesmanship and in philosophy, we as often find those who most excel, springing from the 
walks of those whom the gentlem.aa from St. Louis would place in the category of slaves, as 
from the better educated and higher classes of society. And no country, more than our own, 
'•.Hu boast of so large a class of persons as those to whom I have referred. Some of the 
brightest names that adorn the historical annals of this Republic, and who have conferred 
the greatest blessings upon the people in building up and strengthening our free institutions, 
bav« been men of the humblest origin. 

We now come to the letter said to be addressed by me to Col. Benton, which is such a 
mimstrous ini'iuity in his estimation. That letter was written at the time the .Jackson reso- 
laitions were the subject of controversy in this State; and here I would ask the gentleman froni 
St. Louis if he would have voted for the Jackson resolutions? 

Mr. GOODE said lie would not, but would explain why. Though there was nothing in the 
r«3,'iOiutions in which he did not heartily concur, yet he deemed their introduction at the timsi 
was inexpedient. 

Mr. ROLLINS — Every Whig in the (Jeneral Assembly except the gentleman from Scott, 
voted against those resolutions when they were introduced. Their action was endorsed by 
every Whig newspaper in the State, Every Whig of prominence and distinction in Missouri 
sustained the action of their Represerisatives in this hall. Including our distinguished candi-* 
dat«for the Senate, (Col. Doniphan.) 

Mr. DARNES rose and said that ilen. Watkins, who was recognized in South-east Missouri, 
and throughout the entire State, had approved of the vote which he (Mr. Dames) had cast 
«pon the occasion referred to by the gentleman from Boone, and at a public meeticg of Whigs 
hold shortly after, resolutions were passed in support of the Jackson resolutions, and of his 
act; on in that hall. 

Mr. ROLLINS — Sir, I admit that there may have been a few exceptions, and I also admit 
that the gentleman from Scott was a di»senter from the action of the Whig party on that, as 
well as on other occasions. When Col. Benton made his famous appeal tolhe people of Mis- 
souri, the Whig party, which had long been in a state of subjugation, but which though oft«K 
defeated, was never subdued, saw a favorable opportunity for overthrowing their'ancient 
and triumphant enemy. Ambitious of grasping the reins of power, which had been held so long 
by the Democratic party, or if you please, "hungering for the flesh-pots of Egypt," 
they fostered the feud and fomented the discord which had sprung up among them. Whig 
poi:tic|ans, and rays?lf among them, — for you know, sir, politicians will do suchlhings, patted 
both aides on the back, and cried, hurrah ! to the one and well done ! to the other. My ven- 
erable friend who sits before me, (bowing to Mr. Paschal,) did the same thing, and is, I doubt 
not, prepared to do it again when the proper time shall arrive. Those were legitimate party 
tectics, and certainly cannot be coi demned or censured by a whig. But on that particular 
«!.uestion I was with Col. Benton. The Whig party of Missouri was with Col. Benton upon 
that question, and against the anti-Benton wing of the Democratic party. I condemned the 
Jaekson resolutions, because they sprung a baleful agitation upon the State, and also because 
*ey embodied nullification and tended to disunion. 

The letter, of which detached fragments have been read, was stolen from Col. Benton, and 
a small part of it only published to place me in a false position. The entire letter was not 
published, but the parts which would have explained my true' sentiments and opinioB? 
throughout, were suppressed, and this garbled production is quoted in this hall, to place rae 
ia a false position, and put a foul raisconstructionupon my sentiments. It was written with 
3 pm-pose and intent altogether different from what has been imputed. I preserved no copy 
afthe letter, but 1 still remember the tenor of its contents. It was written to a distin- 
guished man, and in it I adverted to a great politicial question, to a great controversy in 
which that distinguished gentleman was involved, and about which question the Whigs in 
the General Assembly, and throughout the State, agreed with him. I mean the Jackson 
Ke.^olutions. So far as opposition to these resolutions was concerned, I might well have 
expressed the opinion, that the Whigs of Missouri would sustain Col. Benton,"for the Whigs 
wftre united almost to a man on this question. And in reference to the expression used, that 
Ms absence from the Senate might turn out a national calamity, and in the event that his 
^ace would be filled, by a Democrat greatly his inferior, and known to be deadly hostile to 
the Whig administration of Gen. Taylor, whilst the belief was equally current, and well 
founded that Col. Benton, would sustain Gen. Taylor's administration, I expressed an opini-m 
Hiat would h.ave been endorsed by Whigs every where. Unlike the gentleman from St. Louis, 
T preferred first a Whig ! but in a contest between two Democrats. I should have taken what 
I «i*nsidcred tiie lesser evil. 



ff] 



When these garbled paragi-aphs were published in the newspapers, I wrote to Col. Eentiis 
fw the letter which I addressed to him, or for a copy of it, the publication of which W(;uld 
bftve vindicated me from the false construction received frora those garbled extracts. ClT 
b'jinton wrote to me a reply, from which I will read to this Assembly : 

WASHitroTON City, Norember 9, 1S61. 
Major Rollins— 

1>EAR J-ir. :— i hare just roocifed your letter of the 2'2d ultimo, and.ilthough just in the act of setting o!f for Mk- 
»'juri,and much occupied, I seize a"fk>w momouts to r^pXy to it. You are right iu your recollection of whaS I sakJ 
about the Metropolitan, "that I never read anything in it;" and, I can add, I never answer anything in it PTf*? 
♦"hen shown to me, that merely concerns myself. IJut the article you enclose chietly concerns you, and IImi 
writer has the audacity to mention my name, as authority for lies against you. His statements are false. l«U» 
uot recollect of receiving but two letters from you, and have neither of them now. In looking over my papers tijis 
;a!l, previous to going away, I have seen neither of them ; and as it is my haljit, and necessary from the msssfis of 
iettere which I receive, to de.stroy those which do not require future attention, yours must have shared that fe»« 
unless stolen from me. I neither g.ave them to anybody, nor g.-vve out copies to a.nybody, uor had any future We 
t-o malce of them, but I know you never wrote what is attributed to you. You never promised me the aid of ih» 
Whigs to carry me triumphantly over the heads of my enemies, nor did I ever ask such aid from you. You bpth-i 
ijj^d up<5u me the enlbrcement of fretisoil doctrine upon the people; nor did I ever urge such doctrines or entertajo 
Jiiem. My sentiments on that sulgect are ia my JeKcrson City spcecji ot May, 1849, and ail other sentinieH<£ it«j-s- 
k»iJtod to me are falsfehoods." 

Sir, this testimony, coming from the source it does, relieves me from the charges made hy 
uie gentleman from St. Louis. If that gentleman, or any other, can make capital for him- 
self, df raise any prejudices against me, by reading from the tail of a private letter, addrcehed 
r.i> a gentleman and titelen from him, he is heartily welcome iodo it. The gentleman is heartily 
Welcome to use such weapons against me if he is sati!^fied with himself in so doing. 

Mr. GOOPE rose to explain: It was not his object to inquire by whht means the levtei 
t'L'came public, lie found it published, and he had a right to make use of it. 

Mr. ROLLINS — Sir, I am glad the gentleman has made use of it, and he is welcome toaH 
he can make out of it. I am glad he has produced il in this hall, for it has given me axa. 
opportunity of vindicating myself. 

' On the question of the Jackson llesolutious, to which it referred, I expressed the opiaion? 
which I sincerely entertained, and which opinions were endorsed by the "Whig party of Missonri. 
On that question, I, in common with my party, agreed with Col. Benton, thougli differing 
widely with him on other great principles of State and National Government. But I wiU 
ioform the gentleman who has labored with so much endui-ance, and with so little succoss^, 
that I would rather have seen Benton iu the Senate than any Democrat who wa.<3 tainted with 
nullification, if the contest lay between such a man and Col. Benton. Sir, I will also tell t)t.« 
gentleman that 1 would rather have voted for Col. Benton, than for a whig who voted for 
Franklin Pierce in 1852. 

But Sir, what condemnation does the gentleman merit, wheji he attempts to criticise ice, 
simply for writing a letter to a distinguished member of the Democratic party, intended t» 
aid our cause, and with the admission on his lips that he proved a traitor to the Whig cause 
in 1852, when he voted for Pierce, and after the great effort, which he has just made. (• 
«iect Atchison over Doniphan ? And with what superlative impudence must ho be clcthcd 
t.^ stand in his place here, and talk about " dark suspicions" upon the political character of 
any Whig, with facts like those I have stated, staring him in the face? Did he suppoM 
that because of the manner of voting in his county by ballot, and not ''viva voce " the faot 
■td his political apostacy, would not be detected and exposed ? And sir, it will be a questicu 
more curious and interesting to the Whigs of St. Louis, than important to this discussion, 
for them to ascertain by what means, a gentleman was placed upon the Whig ticket ifl tL« 
l]^t canvass, who voted for Pierce and King, instead of Scott and Graham ! 

Sir, the gentleman from St. Louis has asserted that while I introduced the names of several 
ejetlnguished Whigs in this State as authority on political questions, I never mentioned th^e 
name of Henry S. Geyer. Surely, the gentleman must be strangely forgetful, or singularly 
inattentive to the speech which I made two evenings ago, and which he has so elaboralelv 
criticised. The name of Geyer was the first mentioned in that catalogue of distinguit^hed 
Whigs. I said of him that I served with him in that hall many years ago, and knew him um 
a profound and accomplished legislator. I stated that I was well acquainted with the purity 
.»f hi3 domestic life, and the sincerity and dignity of his character. I quoted him as fiu 
authority upon the danger and impropriety of making the power question a test. I will »c»w 
add, for the information of the gentleman from St. Louis, that he did not approve of tb« 
Jackson resolutions. If I had been a member of the Legislature at that time, although b# 
was not my first choice, I would have given him a cordial and earnest support, and cot bs 
the Pierce Whig supports Doniphan. 

The love of the Jackson resolutions which the gentleman exhibits, and the eagerness with 
which he seeks to apply the test and engraft a new and heterogenous principle upon the an- 
edent doctrines of the Whig party, have been recently caught by contagion. They attost 
their origin. The gentleman derived them from his Anti-Bentou associates. He caught the 
s<ino since he came to Jefferson City. He adopts the course and advocates this principi* 
which has scattered the Democratic party to the fom* winds. The gentleman is desirous W 
produce the same catastrophe in the Whig party, though ho lacks the power, he has shown 
that he possessess the will to do it. I shall now proceed to notice the gentleman's argumcuis 
j.pon the question of the power of Congress to legislate upon slavery in the Tcrritcriea. 



He argued that as the tomb of Jefferson had recorded upon it. that he was "The author of thf 
De;laration of American Independence — the author of the Statute in favor of Religious tol- 
eration, and of th.e Statute abolishing the law of rrimogeniture and entails in the State oi 
Virginia — and Founder of the University of Virginia," — and did not record that he was the 
author of the ordinance of '87, that he could not, therefore, have wi'itten it! Sir, if all tie 
great deeds of Jefferson were to he appropriately recorded upon his cenotaph, it would ris« 
to the height of the pyramids. The tomb that covers the gi-ave of Thomas Jefferson is not 
the monument of his fame. Not upon that tomb, but upon the broad continent are his deeds 
recorded, and while the solid earth endures, it will be the fittest monument of his patriotism 
and intellectual greatness. Not upon his tomb, but upon the hearts of a people who appre- 
ciate him, are his thoughts and deeds recorded. But I would ask the gentleman from St. 
Louis if the ordinance of '87 was not reapplied to the Territories of Indiana, Illinois, 
Michigan aiid 'Viseonsin ? and if the laws organizing these Territories did not receive th« 
signatures of Adams, Jefferson and Jackson, on the occasion of their passage ? The law of 
'89, approve! by Washington, which the gentleman says was passed in fulfillment of a con- 
tract, bears upon its face the declaration that it was' enacted to give full '-force and effect" to 
the ordinance of '87, and its subsequent application to the Territories I have enumerated, 
shows conclusively that Thomas Jefferson, and Congress in its early existence, not only ad- 
mitted the power, but exercised it to the exclusion of slavery. The gentleman must also be 
apprised th.it the ordinance of 1787, met with the entire concurence of the whole south. — 
The vote of every State in the Union was unanimous in favor of it, with the exception of a 
single individual vote, and he was a northern m.an. 

The gentleman from St. Louis informs us that " Mr. Jefertan and many other great mm of 
ifie Sout?i u-a!) opposed," to slavery,' and therefore, he must have been opposed to restrict- 
ing it, and it is argued again that because Mr. Jefferson was President of the United 
States in 1803, at the time of the pttrchase of Louisiana, and because this whole country 
was not at that time made free Territory, therefore Mr. .Jefferson did not concede the power 
to Congress to mnke it so ! This is another " non tequitur^' of the gentleman: Mr. Jeff<?r- 
«on as President had no power over the question ; seeing slavery existing in tlie Territory, 
at the time of its acquisition, he pursued the dictates of an enlightened patriotism to let it 
alone; not to disturb it, but to leave it where it properly belonged, in the hands of the people, 
and their Representatives. 

Sir, it is not my purpose to go into an extended argument, to prove that Congress has the 
pk)wer to legislate tipon the subject of slavery in the Territories. It is a power that has been 
eKercised, from the commencement of our government down to the present time, receiving 
the sanction of nearly all the Presidents of the United States, from George Washington 
down to James K. Polk, and of almost every statesman, who has held a seat in the National 
Councils, and which was never seriously doubted tintil within the last few years, thus 
proving that sis we recede fi'om the Constitution, we are becoming more wise in its interpre- 
tation, than the very men who made it. 

In the language of Mr. Clay, " I must say that when a point is settled by all the elemen- 
tary authorities, and by the uniform interpretation and action of eVery department of our 
government — legislative, executive and judiciiil; and when thatpointhas been settled during 
a period of fifty years, and never was seriously disturbed until recently. I think that if w« 
fire to regard anything as fixed and settled, under the administration of this Constitution 
©f ours, it is the question which has been thus invariably and uniformly settled." 

The idea once existed that a power to acquire Territory carried along with it, the aitthority 
to govern it, and that there was no other restriction in regard to this right, than that found 
in the Constitution of the United States, and as no one had as yet been enabled to find in 
tliat instrument, any such restriction, it must therefore, of necessity exist, not only in 
reference to slavery, but also in reference to every other species of property. 

The idea or.ce existed that in the acquisition of foreign 'Territory, whether by discovery, 
by treaty, or by conquest, the whole sovereign power over it, was by the very transfer itself, 
vested in the Government of the United States, and as all legislative power, under the Con- 
stitution, belonged to Congress, therefore this power to legislate over the TeiTitories, must 
©sist there, and nowhere else, and with Congress must rest the necessity to judge how far, 
and to what extent this authority should be exercised. The States cannot do it— individuals 
eannot do it, and it is plain to be seen, that none other than Congress can do it. Congress 
gives government to the Territories ; passes laws authorizing the appointment for them of 
Governors, Judges and other officers, and delegates authority to the Territorial Legislature, 
to do that which it is denied that Congress can do itself! Chief Justice Marshall, in deliver- 
ing the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the American In- 
surance Company, et al., vs. Canter, uses the following language; 

" Perhaps the power of governing; a Territory belonging to the United States, which has not, hy becominp a 
State, acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily from the facts, that it^is not within the jar- 
jsaiction of any particular State, and is within the power and .iurisdictjon of the United States. Tlw- right to 
gavtrn, may le the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire 'Jhrriiori/. Whicliever itw-y 5e the source, wJtence Ihs 
pouter is derived, the possession of it is unquestioned." 

And again, in the same opinion, he says: 

"In legislating fen- thcni (the Territories) Congrtss exirci^ei Hh cmxlined powers of the General and of a Sltik 
Ch'jcmviciit." 



L i^ J 

But the Constitution is not silent on this subject. Article 4, section 3, clause 2, reads thus : 

"Th.e Oi'Tigrefs shall 7iave prmvr to dispose df andvicJct aUiuedfid ndes and rejidatioTis respccling the Territory, iff 
*Otcr property of the United Stutes." 

Here the authority is expressly given, and there is no earthly power to judgo of the rules 
Rnd regulations necessary for the government of tlie Territories but Congress. It is, how- 
ttver, unnecessary for nie to dwell upon these points. 

Sir., we fire all aware that the Constitution, though written in simple and perspicuous 
language, has been subjected to various and conflicting interpretations. Gen. Jaekson took 
the high ground that the individual should judge for himself. lie assumed that no man 
ahould be governed in hia interpretation of that sacred instrument contrary to his own sen»« 
of right. That, sir, was correct doctrine, properly qualified. The private judgment of 
tlie individual, though it may properly fortify its^elf by authority, should not be overslaughed 
hy authority. The interpretation of the individual should be held good, and steadfastly 
maintained, until it was reversed by the decision of the competent and ultimate tribunal for 
pronouncing upon the merits of every controversy, involving the powers of the con.'^titution. 
But, sir, I maintain that the judgment of the individual must succumb to the judgment of 
the Supremo Court of the United States. Otherwise we construct a platform upon which 
anarchy, higher law and miUification can logically stand, and entrench themselves in a posi- 
tion unassailable and formidable. I will now ask the gentleman from St. Ltmis, who has 
dwelt so long on the odious character of the Missouri compromise, if the Supreme Court ad- 
mitted its constitutionality, would he acquiesce in the decision, and reverence the law? 

Mr. GOOI»E said that if the Missouri compromise were to be acknowledged constitutional 
by the Supreme Court, he would recognize the validity of the decision acknowledging its 
eonstitutionality. 

Mr. ROLLINS — I hope the gentleman cherishes those sentiments sincerely. I am rejoieed 
to hear from hini the avowal of such opinion. I had always understood the gentleman en- 
tertained, not central or conservative, but extreme southern proclivities. I had understood 
tlie gentleman was a disciple of the Calhoun school. I understood he gloried in being ranked 
beneath tlie banners of Calhoun, one of whose leading maxims was, that tlie Supreme 
Court was a branch of the federal government, and as such was as liable as any other of its 
departments to usurp unconstitutional powers, and oppress the States. 

I pass to the history of the Missoui-i compromise, and here allow me to remark, tliat in near- 
ly all the authorities read bj'^the gentleman from St. Louis, denying to Congress the constitu- 
tional authority to restrict slavery, referred to the Slates and not to the Territories. No man 
pretends, for a moment, that Congress can interfere with this subject in the States — this is 
denied upon all hands, and the gentleman might have saved himself much trouble, and this 
joint session a heavy infliction by not dwelling on this point. When the law was pending 
iiutaorizing the people of Missouri to form a State Government, the following amendment 
was oS"ered by a distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Iloberts:Ji 

^■Pi-ovided, That the further xntroduetinn into scmZ State of persons to he hdd to slavery, or mvohininry servHudt 
within the same, sliaU be obsolutAy and irrevocahly prohibited.'' 

This was a restriction upon the State, and it was ag.ainst the rifiht and expeJicncij of ihit 
proposed restriction that Mr. Clay addressed the committee four hours, as quoted by the gen- 
tleman from the National Intelligencer. The gentleman confounds this proposition to restrict 
slavery in the ySto^fi of ]\Iissouri, with the one which was subsequently 'offered and passed, 
prohibiting slavery in the Territory North of the line of 36° 30', North latitude, and com- 
monly called the Missouri Compromise. The one, I repeat, had reference to the State, tbft 
other to the Territory — the first proposition was voted down, the last was as follows, and 
was adopted in the Senate by a vote of 34 for, to 10 against it, and in the House of Repr«- 
sentativcs, by a vote of 134 for, to 42 against the amendment. 

"And be it further enacted. That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, tinrti^r the name o*^ 
liouisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only such part thereof M 
is included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act,, slavery and involuntary servi.urte, otlierwise 
than in the punishment ofcrimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever 
prohibited: Prm-id&l, always. Th&t any person escaping into the .s:ime frcdn -whom labor or service is "lawfully 
claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, aud o.uveyed to 
the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid." 

A majority of the Southern Representatives voted for tJiis amendment — (the iMissoui-i Compro- 
mise line. ) Amongst those who voted for it, we fiml the names of Eaton, of Tennessee, 
(Secretary of War during the administration of Gen. Jackson,) llichard M. Johnson, former 
Democratic Vice President of the United States ; Johnson, of Louisiana ; Wm. 11. King, of 
Alabama, Pemocratic Vice President of the United States, and elected on the sai^e ticket 
with Franklin Pierce, and for whom the gentleman from St. Louis (Mr. GooJe; voted; Pleas- 
ants, former Governor of Virginia ; Walker, of Al.vbnrna, and Williams, of Tcunet;see. And 
in the House of Representatives, wo find amongst others, the fol-lowing Southern names. 

Allen, of Tennessee ; Anderson, of Kentucky ; Archer, of Maryland ; Bayly, of South 
Carolina ; Brown, of Kentucky ; Bryan, of Tennessee ; Cannon, of Tennessee ; Cocke, of 
Tennessee ; Crawford, of Georgi.a ; (]rowell, of Alabama ; Culbreth, of Maryland ; Culpepper, 
of North Carolina; Cuthbert, of Georgia; David.son, of North Carolina; Earle, of South 
Carolina ; Fisher, of North Carolina ; Floyd, of Virginia ; Hardin, of Kentucky ; Kent, of 



Maryland; Little, of Maryland ; McCreary, of Soutli Carolina; McClano, of Dela-war* ; 
Mr:Clcan, of Kentucky ; Mercer, of Virginia; Nelson, of Kentucky ; llankin, of Mississippi ; 
HinggoUl, of Maryland ; Robertson, of Kentucky ; Settle, of North Carolina ; Smith, of 
IHkiryland ; Smith, of North Carolina ; Strother, of Virginia ; Trimble, of Kentucky ; 
Tucker, of South Carolina ; AVarfield, of Maryland ; Williams, of North Carolina ; Lowndes, 
»>f South Carolina, ■who died early in life, but who was regarded in his day, as one of tbe 
ri'jst brilliant of American orators. And in addition to these names, we may add that of 
ITmry CUnj himself, good authority I presume, for all Whigs who did not vote for Pierce. 

The gentleman from St. Louis, has attempted to raise a doubt whether Mr. Clay thus voted 
— ^he has read extracts from his speeches, which i/jere never reported, and given statements »« 
to his views, in regard to the restriction upon the State of I\Iissouri. I read, what Mr. Clay 
himself said, when speaking of the Missouri Compromise line of 30^ I^U''. I quote from his 
ipeech delivered in the Senate, 5th February, 1850, 32d volume Appendix lo Congressional 
<jlobe, pages 117-18 ; 

"But I take the occasion to say, that among those who agreed to that line were a in:i,i ::r\ ' i :ul;_'vn mem'bers. 
My friend from Alabiima, in the Senate, (Mr. King.) Mr. Pinckney, from Maryland, .ii' • i'the Southern 

Se'aators in this body voted in favor of the line of 36d 30m; and a majority of tho .'•■ ■ - in the ottwr 

House, at thb' head of whom was Mr. Lowndes himself, voted also for that line. I ii< , k-.' ■ .ind I did also; 
but .■\s I was Spuakt-r of the House, and as the journal does not show which way the speaker voics oieept in th« 
ease of a tie, I ;: Di notable to toll with certainty how I actually did vote: but I have no earthly doiibt that I 
iMi^dl, in common with my other Southern fi-ieud.'s, for the adoption of tlie line of 36° 30\ S o the matter ended in '20." 
The bill authorizing the people of Missouri to form a Constitution fc.v a State government, 
became a law on the 5th day of RIarch, 1820. I may add the remark, that most of the dis- 
tinguished Southern names above mentioned, opposed the attempted I'estriction on the State, 
but all of them afterwards voted for the Hue of 3G° 30^, and I here read a short letter writ- 
tea at the moment, by the great Pinckney, of Maryland, a member of the United States 
Senate, to prove how Southern men viewed this matter at that time : 

CoNflRESS Hall, March 2d, 1820. \ 
3 0-Clock at i\i:/M. J 
Dkxe Sir: I hasten to inform you that this moment we have carried the question to ado:it Missiuri and aH 
Louisiana to the southward of 3e° 30^ free of the restriction of slavery, and give H; ■ >■■".' !i :i' a shoit time an 
addition of six, and perhaps eight members of the Senate of the United >Statts. It i • i ' : r ' hy the .slave- 
holding States as a ffrea,t triumph. The votes were close — !>0 to 86. (The vote was ^ . ) ' <■ ' j.roduced by 
the seceding and absence of a few moderate men from the North. To the north of L'- ; ' ibj; _ is to be, by th» 
present law, restriction, which you will see by the votes, I voted again.st. But it is at pre.seut of i.c nruinnt. It 
is a vast tract uninhabited only by savages and wild beasts, in which not a foot of Indian claims to soil is ex- 
aaguished, and in which, according to the ideas prevalent, no land office will be established for a grcftt length of 
t4nie. With respect, your otedient servant, CHARLES PINCKN EY.^' 

Thus the people of the State of Missouri, were authorized to form their Constitution for a 
State government, which they proceeded to do. In their Constitution, was the following clause : 

"It shall be the duty of the Legislature, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary to prevent free 
ne^ois and muluUoes from coming to, and ^Uliiuj in lids Slate, under any jrreiext wtiatsoevtr." 

In conseqtience of the insertion of the above clause, in our State Constitution, in Novem- 
ber, 1820, when she presented herself for admi.ssion, another controversy arose, upon the 
ground that the above recited clause, infringed that part of the Constitution of the United 
States, wJiich declares that, "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and 
iramunities of citizens of the several States." It led to an angry and exciting discussion, 
and the question was finally settled, by the introduction and passage of tlie following joint 
resolution, drawn up by Mr. Clay, and which became the law, March 2d, 1821 : 
HewJiiiinn providing fm- tJie admissioii of Mismuriintothe Union on certain conditions. 

Hisolvedhy the .^natc and //oms? of liepreKentatives of the United States of America in Ccnorc?:< ^ssriiil-Ud, That 
Missouri shall bo admitted into thisUnion on an equal footing with the original States, in all :■ , ■■■ ■ ■ *!,:;{. :ver, 
opon the fundamental condition that the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of Ibo tbh ' :^ri . ■ i rlieCoD- 
*! itution, submitted on the part of the said State to Congress, shall never be con.-trued to a\r i ; i sa^'e of 

any law, and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which any citizen of titliei ; '.. i siuthis 

Union shall be excluded from the eujojmentof any of the privileges and immunities to which iivb ciiizen is en- 
titled under tbe Constitution of the United Stiitcs: l^mridcd. That the Legislature of said State, by solemn publk- 
li.:t. shall declare tbe as.'iont of said State to the s-Md fundamental condition, and transii.it to the I're.-^iuent of the 
United Sfatt^s, on or before the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic copy of lb- s.m'hI :m-\ : upon the re- 
ofipt when-of, the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fiict : whereupon, m i "itl ^ i^' imiher pro- 
«t-i>ding on the part of Congress", the admission of the said State into this Union shal, : ' , . rr mplete. 

Six?akerof tbi- l:iiu>e ..i j;. ,,.,s.'utatives. 
,|Mil.\ UAibL.V(;0, 
President of the Stii;it.e. pro rempoie. 
Approved, M.arch 2, 1821. JAMLS WO.MIOE. 

This was callcil the second Missouri Compromise, and the people of this State having ac- 
cepted the condition imposed by the foregoing resolution, Mr. Monroe, who was tJien Pres- 
id.ent of the United States, on "the 10th of August, 1821, issued his proclamatiou, declaring 
the admission of Missouri complete, according to law. And so ended the whole controversy, 
in reference to the admission of this State into the Union. 

The gentleDsan from St. Louis has quoted Mr. Monroe^ as denying the power of Congress 
over this subject. Strange indeed that this should have been the opinion of Mr. Monroe, at 
ti>e very time of sijinriff (he bill. Sir, the gentleman is mistaken. This very question — and 
we have it not only from Mr. Monroe himself, but also from John Q. Adams, who was Secrc- 
tn-y of State — was oaavassed in the Cabinet. This ouestion was propounded by the Prcsi- 



[12] 

dent for tlielr decision : *'IIas Congress the right under the powers vested in it hy the Conslitu- 
tion, to make a regulation prohihiting slavery in a t&rrilory V His cabinet was composed oi" a 
majority of southern men, and it gave a unanimous and affirmative response to the aboY« 
question. And perhaps, for great talents, no cabinet has excelled that of Mr. Monroe, at any 
period of our history, being composed of no less distinguished personages than "Wm. B. 
Crawford, Wm. Wirt, and .John C. Calhoun. And yet, strange to s.ay, Mr. Monroe is quoted 
as denying this power ! Knowing, too, the great influence which the opinions of Henry 
Clay must continue to exert over the Whig mind of the country, his powerful name is con- 
stantly iuvolicd, and the gentleman from St. Louis, (Mr. Goode,) has the rashness to declare 
that he, too, is committed against the constitutional right of Congress to enact a law estab- 
lishing the Missouri Compromise line. Now, .sir, I have already proven that Mr. Clay voted 
for it, and he was not the man to violate his conscience and his oath in voting for an uncon- 
stitutional law. But we are not left in the dark as to the opinions of the great Kentuckiau 
on this qixestion. He was a man who thought and sjjoke boldly on all subjects. He kept 
nothing back, and in order that this matter may be put at rest forever, I quote at length from 
hi.s speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, February 5th, 1850, and publish*^ 
rn the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, vol. XXII, pages 117-18 : 

Allow me to say that, in my hiimWe judgment, the institution of slavery prosants two questions totally distisct, 
ajMl reBting upon entirely difier-Tit grounds — slavery within the States, and slavery without the States. Congress, 
the General Govern ii.cn t", hasuD power under the Constitution cf the United States, to touch slavery withiu th« 
«S(-ate»-, except in th'^ thrf- FjiMriHed particulars in that instrument? to adjust tha siitiject of representitiou, to iui- 
■pose taxes on slavLS \,liin :i s\sfi- n of direct taxation is made, and to perform the duty of surrenderiusr, or causing 
Xti be delivered up, fii-itivt- ai r.\-s, when they escape from the service which they owe in the slav?" States, «nd 
take refu;ie in the free States. And I am ready to say that if Congress were ts attack within the Stato the in- 
stitution ojf slavery, with the pui-pose of the overthrow, or the extinction of slavery, then, Mr. President, '*iBJ 
voice would he for war." 

The power then, Jlr. TrGsideut, in my opinion — and I extend it to the introduction as well as to iiio prohibitum Of 
slavery iu the new territories— DOES EXIST IN CONGllKSS ; and I think there is this important distinction 
between slavery outside of the States and slavery inside of the States; that all oulsideof the States is debatalla, 
and all inside of the States is not debatable. The Government has no right to sittack the institution within the 
States; but whether she has, and to what extent she has or has not, the right to attack slavery outside of the Statess 
is a debatable question — one upon which men may honorably and fairly differ; and however it may be decidedi, 
furnishes, I trust, no just occasion for breaking up this glorious Union of our.s. 

I am not going to take up th.at part of the sutgect which relates to the power of Congress to legislate on Bla- 
very — I shall have occasion to make some observations upon that subject in the course of my remarks— whet-her 
in this District of Columbia, or in the territorie.-;; but I must say, in a few words, that I think there are two soui'ce« 
of power, eiil/ier of which is sufficient, in my judgment, to authorize Vie exercitt of the power, eitlier to introduce or 
keiy ouf, sluve.rt/. outside of the. Slates and within the Tcrrit'/riA^s. Mr. VresiJe.nt I shall not take up time, of whi^rh 
so much ha 5 been consumed already, to show that the clause which gives tt' Congress the power to make needful 
rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United &tu.teB cuitcoyi tjic povjcr to legi.'- 
btte for the fcn-itoi-ies. *****"******» 

I know that it is argued that there is no grant of power in express terms, in the Constitution, over the suV)je<tt. 
of slavery. But there is no grant in the constitution, specifically, over a vast variety of eubjects upon whicn the 
powers of Congress are unquestionable. The major includes the minor. The general grant of power compreheniis 
all the particulars of which that power consists. The power of acquisition by treaty draws with it the powt^rto 
govern all the t«rrittory acqtiired. If there be a power to acquire, there must be a power to govern; and I think, 
therefore, without at present dwelling further upon this part of the sxibject, that from the two sources of au^ority 
in Congress to which I have referred, may be traced the power of the Government of the United States to s<H 
upon the territories in general. 

I came now to the question of the extent of the power. I TIIINIv IT IS A POWER ADEQUATE EITHER 'tO 
INTRODUCii OR TO EXCLUDE SLAViJRY. I ADMIT THAT, IF TIUJ POWER EXISTS OF EXCLUDING, 
THE POWER MUST ALSO EXIST OF INTRODUCING OR TOLERATING SLAVERY WITUIN THE TEKKli- 
TORIES." 

In the very face of this distinct and imequivocal avowal of the action and opinions of Mr. 
Clay, on a great question, and with his speech lying before him, in which these opinions 
were so frankly spoken, the gentleman from St. Louis, continues to stultify himself, by deny- 
ing what is here so obviously proven. He would tarnish the name of Henry Clay, and ati- 
iAich to him both insincerity and inconsistency, charges to which, he was perhaps less 
amenable than any other public man of our country. And why has the gentleman thus la- 
bored so hard, to place this greatest of American Statesmen, in an inconsistent and false po- 
sition ? Simply to reach the Whig mind of the country, by raising a doubt as to what Mr. 
Clay's opinions really were, on this and kindred questions ! 

The gentleman from St. Louis kindly informed us that Mr. Clay was in the habit of "talk- 
ing loosely," but I must be permitted to say, that coKsidering the specimen of "loose talk," 
which we have endured from him for two days, he, is the last man who ought to make this 
charge against any one. ■..**' 

Sir, I have been highly gratified, during this discussion, to hear the beautiful trihi^itee 
paid to the character of IIexky Clay, and by gentlemen who, whilst he lived, failed to,-d» 
him justice, and opposed him with the greatest bitterness. It shows the happy influcnte 
which such a man, though he be dead, continues to exert over the minds of his country- 
men. 

Yes, sir, Henry Clay, though he has fallen, has shed light which still shines around us, 
and which will guide us on forever. Mr. President, that idea was vividly brought to my 
raind, when a few days ago, I heard my friend, the eloquent gentleman from Ste. Genivieve, 
(pointing to ?ilr. Bogy,) deliver such a just and .appropriate eulogy upon the great Whig 
Statesman. I flattered myself for a moment, tliat the smouldering fires of Whiggery, were 
about to be rekindled upon the altar of hi.s heart, and that purified by fire, he would be of 
us and among us once more and forever. I flattered myself, Mr. President, that he vrouJd 



'■lAi tlie Whig party wluoh hA ha.I abandoned, -^vith the same zeai auil even more ability than 
ba did before. I flattered my,-?elf that the gentleman, following the dictates of his enlight- 
eneil conscience, would repudiate the error of his ways, and, wiieu his name was called upon 
tlie ballot, cry out, "Doaiphaii." 

If any other names were ■wanted, I could point the gentleman to Marshall and Story — to 
VCiibster and Crittenden — to Fillmore and to Bates, and to a long list of the most distin- 
gtiished Democrats of the nation, including Stephen A. Deuglas. And in reference to the 
action of the government, I remind him of the fact, that in passing laAvs for the organization of 
the territories of Iowa and Minnesota, the principle of the ^lisr.ouri Compromise was appli- 
e.J ; and that in the law organiviing the territory of Oregon, Mr. Atchison himself, for whom 
the gentleman has labored so faithfully to-day, moved to apply to it the ordinance of 1787 ! 
I quote his remarks ou that occasion : 

* I believe that I Tvas the first lo introdufia a bill into this body for cstablishiiijz a territorial govemmsnt i:* 
Orji^on, aud in that bill I iiKvrV'Or.i'i-il i\u: (irdinauce nf 1787; and for j-ears 1 heard uo objection to it oa that 
ivore. There were other '.;'■■.■'■■■;>■' 'i ill, but none on aci-ouiit of its coutaiiiing the ordiQance." * * « 

" As to California and > ■. ' , i^ i"ewnts another question. 1 was willing originally, to abide by tba 

fM-iti'iples of the Mi.ssnuri i" : •- ': . .'i *■■•> extend the prineijiles of that Compromise to the I'acilio ocean, find 
thit IVom t-crritory hereaftt r ,■' l-: . • ;,ut<j 1, slavery should be excluded." 

Who pretends that there was any public necessity at this time for the application of tbia 
"rdinauce ? I point the geiitlemau and his new allies to the vote of Mr. At<;)uson to extend 
ihe Missouri Compromi3«j line through Texas in 1845. I point them to the protMt in 1850, 
i»f Mason and Hunter, of Virginiji, Butler and Barnwell, of South Carolina, 1'uraey, of Ten- 
Hessee, Scale, of Louisiana, Davis, of Mississippi, Atchison of Missouri, and Morton and 
Vules, of Florida, against the admission of California without extending the Missouri Com- 
promise line of 36° '60' to tho Pacific Ocean. Sir, it may be well asked, if this line was 
right and constitutional in 1850, how did it become, not only unconstitutional, but infamous 
iu 1854 ? But what Las been the action of the Missouri Legislature touching this ques- 
tiou? I have before me resolutions of that body, passed February 15, 1847, as follows: 

Joint Eesot-Jtion in rclaiion to the Missouri Compromise Act of 1821. 
ft' t! enadc'i by the Gtneral Assembly of t'le State of Missouri, as foUmvn : 

g 1. That the peace, pormasoMy s,d J welfare of our National Union depend upon a strict adhoreuco to the Jotter 
iMid spirit of the eighth section of t.h(; aet of Congress of the United States, entitled '• An act to authorize the 
j>eojxle of the Missoxiri Territory to form » Constitution and State srovernment, and for tho adinibriii.^D of such 
•!^aU into the Union on an a-iMai footing wiih tho orijjinal States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories," 
• oprovod March 6th, K20. 
^.•2. .That our Senators in tiio 0>7>^ess of tho United States are hereby instructed, and our Representatives 
t^i'lu-.-ited, to vote in a<?cordaa(-e with the provisions and the .spirit of the said einlitU section of the said act, la 
au qufstiots which may come before thi^vn in relation to the or^anizatinn of new Territories or States, out ot the 
1.';;n-itory now belonging to tho United .S^.tes, or which may hereafter be acquired either by purchase, by treaty 
or coni)Uest. 

5 3. That a copy of these resolutions shaH bo forwarded by the Secret;ii-y of Suite- to wch of our Senators an4 
!*presentatives in Congresfi et the "Ooitod States. 

Approved i'ebruary 15, 18i7. 

Every Democrat ia the General Assembly voted for these resolutions! There was no 
public necessity existing at tJiat time to demand the giving of any such instructions. And 
the question is asked, was tho whole Democratic party of Missouri at that time composed ef 
h'-ensoilers ? of men who were willing to sec the constitution of their country violated by the 
adoption of a line which they now say would Jiave been a nuUiiy. Sir, the Federal Consti- 
tation is not this "rope of fsand " which gentlemen seem to regard it. The work of great 
Hud wise men, it contains the land-marks, steady and permanent, to guide and direct the 
pntriot and statesman, in promotiz^g the trite interest and glory of his country. 

No, sir, this sacred icstrmaent cannot be thus compromised. This power under it either 
docs, or does not exist. And v/ken you see and hear men declaring one day against the 
tfX.!,3teTice of the power, and the next day not only recommending but voting for its exercise, 
W9 are driven to the conobision, that they have either violatod their consciences and their 
o'^ths, or that they are uncaadid in what they say. 

1 will now, sir, read opinions of another conspicuous personage upon Congressiouul Icgis- 
Lfction on slavery in the Terrltcrici. 

Mr. GOODE— From what authority do you read ? 

Mr. ROLLINS — I read from an authority not often consulted, and certainly not woU 
unierstood by the gentleman — I read from a Whig Bible. 

•The Pen:iocr.-»cy of the Norfh ar.Y'SA mi> endorse the doctrine of Cass's (T^icholson letter) and thoy nt.ver wn.r. 
The Democracy of this State aro unanimous in the opinion, so far as we know, that OoNGiii..is uas am) £noi!l.l> 
xxKiXiSE THE POWKR ASD EXCLVos SI..^T^:aY KiiOM Califoema AND Nr.w MEXICO.— [JV. If. Puiriot, Juhj 27, 1S49. 

'- I WOULD rAKE THS GROUND ©r IBS KOX-i'.XTFSSlOS or SLAV^KY — THAT SLAVKRT SUOULB NOT liECOMK STRONOEB. 

Bvit Cousress have only renjnacted the old law of 1793. Uniou-loving men, desiring peace and loTinp; their conn- 
tr/, conceded that point— cxwiLiiiNaLT cojicepeh it, and planting themselves upon this law against tho outburst of 
iwpular feeling resisted the aRitation which is assaulting all who stand up for their country. But the gentleman 
■MiA that the law is obnoxious. Whai similk tuin'o is tid:re con.n-ectkd with siavkuy, tuat is not odnoxious ? 
Rvj.s TUB Gi!NTL£MA?r FROM MavvIpoeo [Dr. Batneller, an ultra abolitionist] 0A.■^^0T feel more beeplx than I 
»<• 0» THIS suej£:t, kcy—xOi-'itral Pierce: a iouch in the Xnu Hampshire Cmtstitutional Cmivr.nticm, 

Sir, what I have read ia from a speech delivered by Franklin Pierce, and published in the 
New Ilampshirc Patriot. Such, sir, are the opinions of the man for whom the gontkmaa 
from 5t. Louis voted ia '&-. [Laughter aad applause.] 



[14] 

Sir, gentlemen underrate the intelligence of the people of Missouri, if tliey expect t" 
injure the great Whig party, or any member of it, by the charge of freesoilism. This is an 
>ild song, which they have heard before. In 1844, Henry Clay was denounced as a frec- 
soiler! In 1848, although a Southern man, and owning upwards of a hundred slaves, Gen- 
eral Taylor was denounced as a frccsoiler ! In 1852, the same charge was repeated again«t 
General Scott, (and no doubt by the gentleman from St. Louis himself, ) throughout the length 
und breadth of the land! And by whom, sir? The very men who originally placed ^Iartin Va-n 
Buren in power as President of the United States 1 The vci-y men in Missouri, who were eo 
deeply distressed, and who so cordially sympathized with the great New York uiagiciau in 1840, 
(when he wa? defeated by Gen. Harrison, and who was also charged with being an aboli- 
tionist,) that in their legislative capacity in this capitol, they caused to be addressed to hiiB 
a letter of condolence, abounding in the most fulsome adulation. 

I will, sir, read to this joint assembly an extract from the address which was unanimously 
voted by the Democratic party in this Hall to Martin Van Buren in 1840. Tlie present L:x- 
ecutive of Missouri was their a distinguished member of thi Legislature, and he took a 
loading part in securing the adoption of this address, which I am about to read, by the body 
of which he was an influential member : 

" As the representatives of a slave-holdiug State, Tre cordially approve your manly and cimdid eour.TO on the 
sttbject of ahclitionisro. Tlie pledges which you gave have been fearlessly redeemed, .ind, under the protecting .sfcie!«l 
M' the vet" ;"■»<• r j.i<.>'=(i in your hunds by the constitution, we have felt that our property was secure from that 
fiuiatical I i '• i' r.idinviide the halls of Congress, and which, hut for your Sniiuess, would have seized on 

thi! post Hi) . 1. i' for the dissemination of its treasonable designs. On this subject, you have elevaied 

yourself 111 '<> '■ II- "i.iruiptiblc intrigues of electioneerintr policy, while you h.iTe given the whole forcfe ^f 
jiiur aiimnuMrati'iu it iur property, and to the aid of our violated Constitution, against the operation of a party 
which is led by the WotiU's Cvuventit/ii of England, and is rendered formidable by its association with the capi- 
talists of London and many of our own deluded citizens." 

Sir, that address was voted unanimously by the Democrats of the Legislature who then 
?at in this hall. 

Mr. RUSSELL rose and said he was then a member of the Legislature, and that fee 
refused to vote for it. 

Mr. IK^LLINS — I should have excepted my sagacious friend from Cape Girardeau. 1 ars 
tlioroughly acquainted with the acuteness and sagacity of his intellect, and on that occasion 
kJiey disclosed to him the designs of the sage of Kinderhook. My distinguished friend, the 
Senator from Pike, (Mr. Carr,) had also the sagacity not to vote for Van Buren during that 
contest. Another Dt-mocrat whom I see before me — who was then a m.embcr of tiie Legis- 
la,tui-e — I refer to the eloquent gentleman from Ste. Genevieve — did not vote for th.it 
address, for he was then marching to the tune of 

" Tippecanoe, and Tylor too." [Laughter,] 
With these exceptions, sir, the Democratic members of the Legislature, under the leadership 
«f our present Executive, transmitted the address, a part of which I have read, to consoVo 
with the balm of tcjuler sympathy, the sage of Kinderhook, (now traveling amidst the 
mountains of Switzerland) on hi', expulsion from the theater of public life, and his tiltimato 
iticarceratiou iu the shades of domestic life. In that address the Whig party of this St4i»« 
are stigmatized as freesoilers, and homage is rendered to the great Northern man with South- 
<irn prindph'i; by both wings, and by all wings of the Democratic party ; for then they heM 
but one faith, and worshipped but one God. [Applause.] We need no better evidence that 
t5ioy have repudiated that idolatry, than the formidable accusation, advanced with so much 
power and probability in this hall, that tlie chief apostle of Van Burenism in 1840 — the 
pi-osent worthy Executive of our State — has deviated from the centre, and now inclines as 
much to Southern, as he did then to Northern sectionalism. It would ill become a Whig to 
adjust the balance in which fugitive Democrats are weiglied, or undertake to prove that the 
scale in wliich the Governor of Missouri casts his opinions and proclivities, strikes the 
Southern soil, while the Northern one, from which he has transferred them, kioks the beam. 

On another and a recett occasion, I expressed my views of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. 
When it was first introduced I was doubtful of its policy, although I regard it, and so re- 
garded it from the beginning, as being based upon the principle of justice. I had doubts 
of its expediency, for I anticipated in some measure the results which it has produced. 1 
deemed it a measure of' great importance to Missouri, and I declared in favor of the main 
principle of the bill, before its passage. In proof of this, I bog to read a resolulimi which 
was drawn up by myself, and which was adopted at a mass meeting of the Whigs of Boone 
county, on the 4th day of M.arch, 1854, and which I believe embodied, on this question, th« 
Whig sentiments of the State : 

'•4. That nitliough the people of this Stato have always been willing to abide by the Miasnnri Coinpromiyp, ac 
thty have reyeati .Uy declared through their (ioneral Assembly, yet believing that the host and only just mode 
ef settling tlie slavery iiuostion is to submit it te the judgment of tho people: we approve of the estaVilishio<i>t 
of the territories of Kansas and Nebraslia, with power in the people who may settle in those territories to refo- 
,'ata the suliject of slavery within their limits according to theiv own pleasure." 

As I stated two evenings ago to this Joint Session, although the bill had objectionable 
features, I would have voted for it if I had been in Congress, and I should now resist itB 
repeal, with as much energy as a Calhounite or a Pierce Whig. My friend from St. Ldiis, 
(Mr. Blair) is described by his colleague (Mr. Goode) as nursing hostility against the instita- 



[15] 

ttons of Mis.omu, because he has avowed hostility to the Kansas-Nobrask-i bill Sir i' is 
kuown that upon this subject, I differ with that gentleman (Mr. Blair.) But I do him the 
justice to .aj that I believe h.m to be as loyal to the institutions of Missouri, as auVrntle! 
man m this Assembly I dohim the justice to say that I believe he would be as prompt as 
any man to vesen and to resist any improper or illegal encroachments upon the ri4t3 of the 
■K 1 n , n 1'-.. "' ^rf ?• ""'"'^ f ,"^ in'iependent heart, and what hi thinks he slys and 
If he were hostile to the institutions of his State, the same indepen dent spirit which prompted 
him to denounce the Kansas -Nebraska bill, would prompt himl expres his opinons of thote 
iflstitutions, however adverse they might be. If he entertained such opinions, this AsiemMv 
would not be ignorant of the fact, nor would it be a matter of conjecture or -'nlvLtn ^ 

Iwil now ask the gentleman from St. Louis, who has signalized himself,' by mal^nc. He 
most Yolummous Atchison speech that has yet been heard in Missouri, if he won d W fbro 
gated the ancient laws of the territory, which would have been revived by The repetalofSa 
Missouri Compromise. My friend from Cooper, , Mr. Harrison) enunciated a well esaWslud 
legal maxim when he stated that the repeal of a repealing law revived thloiinal hi 
The laws of the territory of Louisiana, which were enacted by royal edict, rec-ignlzed he 
•Kistence of African slavery in those Territories. The Bad-er "Proviso renonlJM. 
laws, and Gen. Atchison voted for it as a distinct and separate measuie ^ '^"'' 

Mr GOODE deprecated altogether what the gentleman from Boone, was so solicitous lo 
establish, namely his identiiication with Mr. AtohisoQ. If he were i^ Congress he would 

Mr. ROLLINfe-I am glad the gentleman is returning to his first love. I am rejoiced " 
discover that the srecch of the f^cntlomnn r,.^• p;,,i,t ,„.,♦..! i,.. „.. . „ . _ 'V . •'''^'^*^^ ^^' 



with ever 
son 



er that the speech of the gentleman for eight moital hours was not asT in common 
very gentleman m this hall) imagined it was, intended to promote the election ofTS ; 
I am rejoiced to find thathe still intends to vote for Doniphan, for so I cons rue i^ 
At.^^t^Tr .^^' g?,-^^^"f^ is welcome to speak-even for eighUours at ft me- J 
Atchison, If he votes for Doniphan. His vote is of infinitely more importance to us than hit 
oratory. _ I congratulate the gentleman and my Whig brethren on his confession that he 

TZiZ'^'""^^ ?""^'^"^ °"' '^' 'f'"" ""^''^ ^''' '^''^ •'^^^ 1^5s preliminary mov ment fti c! 
shn^owed. He has even gone so far as to refuse to endorse Mr. Atchison in his vote for ti 

Sin irSgrS" '""''' '"^''^ '''' '^ "°"'' '^^^ ''''' '^Sainst the Pro^so if be 
the^trea^y of^llsl".''^'^ ^'^' ^'^''^ '^'""'' ^^° ^''"'°' ^'''^"'^ ^' considered it a violation of 
Sir, what is the Badger Proviso ? I will read it : 

thJoS'lat^w:::f "i^J^Hf^IT^:^ the Missouri Compromise line, would have revived 



the old law ot France, created by an edict of Louis .YV, in March 1724, and by which sluverv 

would have been at once established in Kansas. The adoption of the al^vrPioviso pr7 

_this, and I charge upon Mr. Atchison as being recreant to the best interests of Mi^- 

\lT-i° 1 '/■, 7^ find every abolitionist in Congress voting fur it, and for the very 

hat It e:cchK ed slavery from Kansas. It is known, sir, that^lthough introduced by 

te'^fiw "S.^L'I.l^V" "^^?:'^^C '"'' ^!r Stewart,_a notorious fretsoiler of Michi^ 



vent 

souri, in voting for 
reason that 
Mr. Bade 

Wh^^T^.f"''* °f tl^^^ P^-«"^^« in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, mu^t prore^'pe^nidous toThc 
;^outh. It leaves every man who desires to emigrate, in a state of mind wholly uncer^a'n 
whe herhe can safely carry his slaves with him into ILansas or NebraskI ByThat ? w 
by a law of the territory, for as yet they have had no meeting of the Territorial LSaturc 
Not by a former law of Louisiana, for the Proviso above named, prevents its r °vival t I 
n'^Ti Jf contended, that by virtue of the recognition of slavery, by the Consti(a^)n ofthc 
United States, citizeT>s of the slave States have the right to emigrLte''to n^^o^i^Z^S^ 
with their slaves. This point has not, so far as I know, been seUlod by fhe^eourLs • and unJl 
u IS adjudicated, hero must exist great doubt in regard to it. The .blest men in the n "tkn 
deny that slavery IS so far recognized by the federal constitution, as to authoHzT the t'kS 
of tha description of property into the territories, where it dobs not already exist Unou 

«t tiie United States, upon the Compromise measures of 1850: 
^^^S^h^%^Z^J^l^^tZi:!f^:T'^^^ trraty, the co..tHutUn» 



"" ""■ llo^ <-■»" it he argued that the fifteen slav. 
nto the ceded oountry their institution e 
'.T'"ll";!,?^v*i^^i™«.'=«^?*»"«''°. the fifteen n-e7st.:rt7rca';-H;d'ioto the ceded territonr 



■sMsimmmss^mmss 






[16] 

muoh "round to conknd, v^bcre a inoiety of tiie States are free and the otlior moiety are siavc-holdina .^'tatw. 
fhatthl priuripleof froedom which prerails in tbe one class shall operatu as the principle of slaTery which prevails 
in the other class of Sfcvtes shall operate? Can you, amidst this couflict of interests, of P'^inciples, and of legislation, 
which prevails in the two parts of tho Union-can you come to any other souclusion than that yhich I unde*^ 
^tand to be tne conclusion of the public law .,f the world, of reason and of justice, that the datus of law, as* 
•ni^tpd at the moment of conauest or acquisition, remains unchanged until it is altered by tbe sovereign author- 
ity of the conquering or acquiring power? That is a great principle, and you can scarcely turn over a pa«ec f 
th . Dublic law where ycu will not find it recognized. The laws of Mexico, as they existed at the moment of the 
.-.^s^^iion of tbe ceded territories to this country, remained their laws still, unless they wei-e altered by that new sov- 
ereign power which this people and these territories came undei^ in consequence of the treaty c>f cession to the 
llnilad States 1 tbinli.theu. Mr. Tresident— withcuttrespassingfurther,or exhaustmgthe htnestc.k of strenpth 
which 1 bave'aud for which I shall have ample occasion in the progress of the ai-gum«ut— that 1 may leave that 
part of thesuVjo.-t -viitb two or three observaiions only upon tbe pywor which, 1 think, appertains to this gOTert.- 
niaat upon the subject of slavery within those tenitories." 

Now, sir, if these views of Mr. Clay be correct, bow much arc the people of Missouri in- 
detttpd'to Mr. Atchison, as the great protector of Southern rights, who, by his vote and Lis 
iatiucnce, brought about this state of things? It is well known that Gen. Shields, of Illinois, 
defended 'himself before his constituents, for having vote<l for the Kansas-Nebraska bill, upon 
th9 ground, that slavery was not ettablished in Kansas in consequence of the repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise. And it is also known that President Pierce expressed his surprise to 
Senator Clemens, of Alabama, that any Northern man should oppose the bill, for the reaeon, 
that because of the Badger Proviso. He viewed it aj> the very maffua charta of freedom in th* 

If need be I might go furthw, and prove by the conduct of the gentleman from St. Lonia, • 
(Mr Goode.) in his advocacy of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, that he and his friend (Mr. 
Uchison) have placed themselves in a position, wholly inconsistent, and irreconcilable. It 
will be observed, that the effect cf the Badger Proviso, above referred to, is to legislato 
si,AVERY OUT OF KANSAS ; for without it, a law would at once have been revived, "recstal- 
fiskinf this institution there ! and I would remind the gentleman also, that the Kansas-Ne- 
braska bill contai as a section providing for the rendition of fugitive slaves, escaping into 
these territories, thus proving, that the very bill, for the passage of which, he would reelect 
Mr Atchison to the Senate, contains two clauses legislating upon the subject or slateei- 
).\ THE TEKraTOiuES, and oae of them, in direct opposition to the best interests of the peo- 
ple of Missouri ! , , ,. TTTl • J J--**' 

Upon the queption of slavery, I think, I may safely say, that the great Whig party of Mis- 
souri, is sound and conservative, ready to resist illegal Northern aggression and aboUtionism on 
the one hand and to suppress Southern fanaticism and nullification on the other. Above all 
tbiao-s tho people want repose upon this question. The safety of their property, the integrity 
of the Union, and the permanency of the Government itself, cries aloud against further 
agitation! Let it cease! , ,. . . • ^t, tov 

' Mr P-esident, I will now say that I deprecate all controversy and division m the Whig 
Darty' i may say tliat I have been born into that party, that I have grown up with it; and 
that I have fought for it, and fought with it ever since I began to play a part upon the stage 
of life. I may well regard with contempt any imputation upon my orthodoxy, and spurn the 
nr.plication of any test imported from the political workshops of South Carolina, and now 
attempted to be naturalized in Missouri, by a few crazy experimentalists. 1 may very we.l 
^purn the apinication of a test which would make Henry Clay afrcesoiler, and Daniel Web- 
ster an abolitionist. My loyalty to the Whig party is based upon reason and patriotism, for ■ 
I revere it as cho guardian of the purity and permanency of our institutions. :j^ational avid 
conservative in its character, it stands upon the centre, and checks with steady hand the 
.•ooentric movements of Northern and Southern ultraism. . Its firm and steadfast bearing is 
not affected by any plausible and delusive cry, such as Southern rights or the rights of hu- 
manity, which the demagogue originates, and which sectional feeling adopts and reitcra.es. 
^foT does it stoop from its propriety under any temporary excitement, or any sucWen panic. 
The poles of the axis on which it revolves, are Liberty and Union, and North and South^ are 
rot laid down upon its chart. Sir, the enoch in wjiich we live is an important one. Lookinjj 
across the ocean, we behold the great nations of the old world engaged in a desperate and 
t>emendous conflict, which, in all probability, will shake monarchs from their tarones, and 
ohTiterato the ;xru;icnt landmarks between the natio.vs. That fierce struggle, m its progress, 
laryswcep into its current the civilization and intellectual greatness of Europe, and boar 
them down to one common abyss of ruin. Lot us, on this continent,— on this lair heritage 
which God has qiven us~nnd where be has planted the grandest institutions he has yet 
vouchsafed to man— cultivate cordial feelings and magnanimous sentiments. Let us trample 
upon those novel and disorganizing doctrines, whether wafted hither from the N orth»or frem 
the rank political soil of South Carolina, and which are dangerous to our State, and whicli, 
if .allowed to nourish, may rend us in-.o fragmentR. / x .„ „„j 

May cur beloved country never afford a parallel to the old world in its pres-ent state, and 
n-ay we the citizens of that proud country, labor to realize the prediction ot the po(*«ana 
rhilosopher who gazed upon us from die shores of the moat western land m Europe, and w^io 
realized, as the curtain of the future was uplifted before his inspired vision, and he saw the 
American llepnblic, the last born of tho nations, great and glorious, that "Time s nobles* 
Krnpireis the last." , -r. ■.,• . it 

[Eathusiastic applause succeeded the termination of Mr. rvollms speech.] 



The following eloquent tribute to the worth and memo- 
ry of Dr. Linn fell from' the lips of Col. Rollins, a whig 
member of the Missouri Legislature in 1855, twelve years 
after Dr. L. had passed away : — 

Mr. Rollins said he had just heard the bill read, and his 
attention was called to it by the mention of the name of 
Lewis F. Linn. }{is heart was always touched, when the 
memory and services of our distinguished men, who had 
passed from the stage of action, were brought in review 
before him, and by none sooner than by the name of Lew- 
is F. Linn! 

Mr. Rollins said he had enjoyed but a slight personal 
acquaintance with that good and noble man ; but it was 
one of the pleasing memories of his life, the day that he 
formed his acquaintance, now twenty four years ago, al- 
most a quarter of a century. Mr. R. said when he was 
a youth, having just left college, he paid his first visit to 
Jefferson City. On the hill, near the Governor's house, 
stood the old capitol of the State. The General Assem- 
bly was in session. Dr. Linn was a member of th.e Sen- 
ate, the most graceful, elegant and accomplished gentle- 
man of that body. Mr. R. said he remembered his warm 
and cordial reception, when he was introduced to him. 
An impression had been made upon his youthful heart 
which would never be effaced. From that time he had 
watched with solicitude and deep interest the career of 
Dr. Linn. After having served Missouri faithfully and 
honorably as a legislator, a vacancy occurring in the U. 
S. Senate, in consequence of the death of Senator Buckner, 
he was transferred by the appointment of Governor Dunk- 
lin, to that body. He entered that forum of distinguished 
men a stranger, but on account of his high and chivalrous 
impulses, his noble and manly bearing, the beauty and 
gracefulness of his whole character, he won at once an 
enviable position in the Senate ; and Mr. R. said he would 



venture to say that few men had exerted a wider influence 
over the deliberations of the American Senate, for the 
length of time that he remained there, than Dr. Linn. He 
was a poet as well as a statesman ; his character became 
national, and he was not only respected but beloved by all 
who knew him. He was twice elected to the Senate, and 
almost without opposition. Whilst there, and up to the 
day of his death, his energies and best efforts, in the vigor 
and prime of manhood, were devoted to the promotion of 
the interests of the people who had thus honored him. He 
was loyal and faithful to Missouri; he was alive to every- 
thing that concerned her honor, her prosperity and her 
glory, and the National statute book abounds with many 
acts, of which he was the author, and intended to promote 
our advancement. 

It is appropriate, on this occasion, to mention at least 
one of those acts. I refer to that by which the Platte 
purchase was attached to our State. Without doing in- 
justice to the honorable efforts of others, he might be per- 
mitted to say, that we were more indebted to Dr. Linn 
and Gen. Ashley for this beautiful addition to our State, 
than to any other persons. And Mr. R. said if this was 
all, it was sufficient of itself to entitle him to the lasting 
gratitude and affectionate remembrance of our people. 

Look to the Platte — the six splendid counties of the 
Platte county — the El Dorado of our State, the most fer- 
tile and beautiful portion of Missouri — he might say of 
the Mississippi Valley — he might say of the Union ; a 
land flowing with milk and honey, as rich as the valley of 
the Nile, and as charming to the vision as that v/hich 
opened upon the sight of Moses, when he beheld the 
bright and lovely heritage which God had giv^en him. For 
this addition to our State, now filled with a rich, intelli- 
gent, and powerful people, we are chiefly indebted to the 
active zeal and devoted patriotism of Lewis F. Linn ! And 
now we are asked, through his warm personal friend, 
whilst he lived, (Mr. Bogy,) to make a small appropriation 
out of the overflowing treasury of this same people, whom 
it so much delighted him to serve, to be expended to pro- 



^' 



tect from the rude decay of time the chaste and beautiful 
monument, erected by the hand of taste, and which marks 
the spot that contains his ashes. Sir, let the bill pass, and 
let there be no dissenting voice ! 

One other remark, Mr. R. said, and he was done. We 
are too careless and indifferent in treasuring the memory 
of our departed statesmen — those who aided in laying the 
foundations of society on this great river, and to whom 
we are indebted for the very State government under 
which we live, and have grown and prospered. 

"Forget not the faithful dead" is a holy and pious senti- 
ment, which should be deeply engraven upon the heart of 
every cultivated people ; and it is as much by the observ- 
ance of its sacred injunction, that we ourselves will be re- 
membered and honored hereafter, as by the physical im- 
provement of our country, and the building of it up, in 
all the arts of civilized life. What steps have we as yet 
taken to rescue from the deep sea of oblivion, the great 
deeds of the early pioneers of our state? Where is the 
Historical Society of Missouri ? and where are the monu- 
ments which a grateful people have raised to perpetuate 
the noble deeds of the Boones, the Callaways, the Coopers, 
the Bartons, the Clarks, the Ashleys and the Millers of 
our State ? These men have passed from the stage of 
action, 

"And memory o'er their tomtts no trophies raise." 
Sir, this should not be. And in passing the bill intro- 
duced by my friend from Ste. Genevieve, reviving as it 
does a recollection of the virtues of the lamented Linn, 
let a kindlier patriotism animate our breasts, that at no 
distant day we may discharge the heavy debt of gratitude 
due to the memory and character of other departed pio- 
neers and statesmen. 



L^2?f«V 0. C0.«,,3 



Mi 



572 82i7 



P'^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 572 821 6 



Conservation Resources 
Lig-Free® Type I 
Ph 8.5, Buffered 



